Public Accounts Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

With the equipment we're using in Afghanistan--we're part of an allied system--is there an interchange between us and our allies in terms of equipment, medical supplies, or other needs, where you can go to your neighbour and say you need...?

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting question, because there is no interchange as such. Even though we're all under the NATO umbrella, there is no systemic approach to sharing equipment between the key countries. We have formed a group of partners, and we talk to each other. We are connected to each other all the time, and when we see a deficiency we use the unofficial network to get them supplies.

We have had several examples in Afghanistan where the United Kingdom, the United States, and even New Zealand have been providing us with some of the equipment we need for our troops.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I'm rather surprised that NATO hasn't done more to look at the standardization of equipment and the ability to exchange, on an almost hourly basis, when something is needed.

[LGen Walter Natynczyk]

During the Cold War period, when we had a lot of troops--air and land troops--in Europe, we did indeed have NATO standards for various pieces of equipment, and there was a degree of sharing across the board. We now see efforts by NATO partners, as General Benjamin just mentioned, to try to get back into that. But the problem is there are so many different pieces of equipment being used by various nations, especially on the kinds of major vehicles that we're using in theatre, that it's difficult to do that. But at the same time, Mr. Ross gets together with his colleagues from other NATO countries to find ways and means in order to do that, because we absolutely agree that it would be far more efficient if we had that wherewithal to do some sharing on the ground.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

In Somalia we had trouble with break-ins at our compounds, and the loss. Has that been a problem in Afghanistan?

[MGen Timothy Grant]

Every forward operating base that we operate by ourselves has an outstanding level of security. To this point there has been no indication of a break-in by anyone into those forward locations.

Certainly at Kandahar airfield, where we share those security requirements with our allies, the security requirements are absolutely stringent, and there is a layered defence to the airfield. All of the locally engaged employees are searched by hand and mechanically as they come into the airfield, they're managed while they are on the airfield, and they're searched again before they leave. So we're very comfortable that we have not suffered any losses through theft by locals who have infiltrated our camps.

The other thing that we acknowledge is that if Taliban insurgents were actually entering into our camp, they would not be there to steal fuel or food; they'd be there to kill us. From that standpoint, we're very cautious of our security situation, and we make sure that is always the number one priority.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

A final question, if I might.

With the deficiencies, the Auditor General seemed to say.... This is a very small percentage of the overall equipment and supplies that are available in the field. In terms of the Auditor General's report, there are what they call write-offs: every quartermaster can write off certain equipment. Does this include write-offs, Mr. McRoberts, or is it simply overall loss of equipment?

[Wendy Loschiuk, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll answer that question.

If I understand, you're asking about the $7 million and the $6.6 million. These were inventory counts. National Defence went in, basically to do a spot check: “This is what we expect to see. Is it there?” If items were not there, it may well have been that they were written off but not recorded.

From our knowledge of the count that was done, it was simply to check to see if the goods were actually in place.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

General Benjamin might have something on this, but in the write-off system you tear gear out of a big tank and throw it away.

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

Mr. Chairman, the $7.1 million in fact represents the write-offs. But as I was saying, this was a spot check, so it is not the final write-off. When we close that mission and we have a chance to localize the items, then we will reverse the process, if you wish.

It's not a matter that we've lost anything, it's just that we cannot track it. It was the first time ever during that rotation that our specialists could go outside the wire, outside of Kandahar, and look at the FOBs, the forward operating bases. But they were at the FOBs for three or four days, and there was action throughout that time, so it was very, very difficult to track the items. They didn't see it, so they reported that they didn't see it.

When we close the mission, we'll see reverse engineering of much of this kit.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, seven minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much.

Actually, a lot of the questions I was going to ask have been answered.

I want to especially commend the folks from the military. We sit on a committee where the old saying “when in doubt, mumble or use double-speak” seems to be the standard rather than the exception. In both hearings I've had with the Canadian military people, this is very refreshing--straightforward answers to questions. I think everybody on this committee should be impressed with the quality of answers we receive here. We're certainly not getting any of this mumbling or double-speak.

I think some people have described the era leading up to our entry into the war as a “dark decade”, especially in terms of equipment that our forces had when we entered this situation. I'm assuming the supply chain wasn't exactly a Canadian Tire or Wal-Mart operation either, if the equipment was pretty much rusted out as well. So it would go hand in glove with the system we had.

Major-General Benjamin, it's my impression that the supply chain that exists today has improved dramatically over what we had in 2005 or 2004, when we got involved in this operation. Is that a correct assumption?

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

Exactly. In fact you should be proud, as Canadians, because we have one supply system, and we're one of the few countries in the world that has one supply system. So we can track it.

People from the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, all come to Canada now to look at how we are doing this. They don't believe it. It's amazing what we do.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much, sir.

Much has been focused on the $7 million worth of inventory that wasn't accounted for. I have read the reports and so on. I mean, you're in an operation where your focus is to make sure you get equipment to the front lines to supply your people. It's important to have a good accounting system in place, but the priority is priority.

But $7 million out of $1 billion--let's put that in context. At the same time, let's compare that to some other government operations we're all quite familiar with: $350 million on a sponsorship program, where we had to pull teeth between the Auditor General's office and a commission to find out what in the world happened, where this money went. We still don't know what happened to $40 million; we have suspicions of what happened to it. But the Gomery commission couldn't even figure out what happened to $40 million.

We spent over $1 billion on a firearms registry, and the error rate was double-digit on a lot of these things. When you tried to use the system, it was double-digit. We had things like $30 million spent on computer programs that failed. They didn't work. And it was never even authorized by Parliament.

Putting this in context, I think this is a vast improvement over some of the things we've seen here.

On the $7 million, let's just get the record clear here. Some people are suggesting that maybe this equipment disappeared or there was fraud involved or something along that line. My reading of the report doesn't give me that indication at all. It's a tracking error or not putting labels on stuff, but it doesn't mean the equipment doesn't exist or isn't being used by our forces.

Could you clarify that for us, General?

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

Yes, I can give you the flavour of it.

Most of the equipment in fact is related to spare parts. This is one of the key issues, that the chain of command wanted to have a better grip on spare parts, especially as we were moving to the FOBs.

So just imagine my team going into an FOB, and they go there for three or four days. We ask the the company to line up their armoured vehicles, because we want to check them and make sure that the kit is there. Each of those LAVs has 8,000 parts, and some of them we have to account for. And we had big armoured plates to account for. We have to go in and check them out. So they line the vehicles up, and we start checking the plates, and all of a sudden they say, “Oh, sorry, we're in the middle of an operation”, and they all bug off.

And then what happened? Well, we did 75% or 80% of the check, and we couldn't confirm the other 20%, so we reported the other 20%. This is what it's all about.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have just another observation. It would seem to me that if Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire had to deal with the Taliban, maybe their supply chain wouldn't be that efficient either, and they might have some inventory that's missing as well.

[LGen Walter Natynczyk]

I would just say that certainly one of the fundamentals of being in the military and wearing a uniform is accountability for kit. You'll probably be aware that a sergeant or a warrant officer getting his section--the platoon--out with all their kit, ensuring that every soldier has what they need in order to go into operations, which will save their lives and ensure that they can achieve their mission successfully, has grown into our culture across the board. That's why we do these follow-up checks. That's why we do things some of our allies don't do, and that's why they're having a look at what we do now. It is part of our culture.

We send in these teams because it's a command responsibility. Before we switch out and bring on a new commander, we want to give them a snapshot of what they are signing on to. Yes, there might be a deficiency, but also it might be somewhere else, and we just don't know that. We recognize it's imperfect, but we still have to give them that snapshot.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The final question I have is about the current situation. I know in the past maybe we had some problems with not updating our equipment or working on our supply chain and so on, and then we get into a tough situation and we find out how deficient everything is, and we get these terms like the “dark decade”. In the current situation, General Benjamin, do you believe that the government is making significant investments in updating equipment and improving the supply chain system?

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

Mr. Chairman, I've been in the forces for 32 years, and I have never seen such support. We did procure some of the kit that was really required for force protection for our people so rapidly, and we brought it into theatre and they're adapting to it. I've never seen that. I've talked to many people who do logistics, and every time I go in that theatre and talk to them, they just cannot believe how much support we've been getting. In fact, now we're pushing the equipment forward, and it gets to them without their even knowing it's coming. This is what we need to be successful in that mission.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Before we go to the second round, I want just two clarifications.

First of all, General Benjamin, you've been using the acronym FOB. A lot of people would understand that to be freight on board. Could you explain that for the benefit of all of us?

[MGen Timothy Grant]

Mr. Chair, the military is full of acronyms. An FOB is a forward operating base. This would be a site that is separate and distinct from the main base at Kandahar airfield. It would be a tactical location that would have 50 to 200 troops associated with it. It would be in an area probably 20 to 50 kilometres from the main airfield, and it would be located in an area of tactical importance, one that would allow soldiers to conduct their operations more efficiently and more effectively, because they wouldn't have to travel to that area to conduct those operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I just wanted to clarify that for the record so that everyone understands what that term means.

Going back to you, Mr. Vice-Chief, you're taking over command as the new Chief of Defence Staff, and you're in very difficult and challenging circumstances. We certainly want to thank you and congratulate you on your appointment and wish you all the best.

Looking at the supply chain, the engagement's going to last at least another three or three and a half years. Things change every day, as we know, but does the military have a critical path as to what equipment is needed, whether this equipment is available, and whether the parts are available to take this mission to at least its scheduled time of conclusion? Can you see that now and what's needed? How do you see that flowing out in the future?

[LGen Walter Natynczyk]

As General Benjamin said a moment ago, we have seen a huge amount of support to ensure that the soldiers, sailors, and airmen have everything they need to do their mission. However, through the Manley panel process that's now under government consideration, we will put the helicopters and/or UAVs into theatre with government approval.

We're dealing with a different kind of supply chain with helicopters and UAVs, so it's critical to learn the consumption rates of those pieces of highly sophisticated machinery and how they operate in theatre. We know that the kind of equipment we're talking about already operates in that theatre, so we'll be able to learn from our allies. We need to ensure that our supply chain works commensurate with our allies' to ensure that those pieces of additional equipment are as effective as they can be in support of our soldiers on the ground.